Introduction

1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is ascribed to the Apostle Paul and to
Sosthenes, "the brother" (1:1),* but is usually thought of as Paul's
composition alone (notice the first person singular of 11:2-3), that
is, unless the Pauline authorship is challenged altogether. It is
notorious for being one of the most difficult passages in the Bible
to interpret, not the least because at each of several points it can
mean entirely different, even opposite things. It is also sparsely
written and full of word play (especially plays on senses of words,
sometimes perhaps even across languages); it is allusive,
rhetorically obscure, heavily interactive with a specific audience
whose side of the conversation is lost, and resistant to attempts to
make sense out of it, whether coherent sense or some sense
corresponding to reality, at least as usually interpreted.
Furthermore, it is and has long been peculiarly susceptible to
anachronistic readings, especially of the male supremacy sort; and it
is usually interpreted, even today, under the sway of seismic shifts
in attitudes towards women and sexuality that took place in
generations subsequent to the Apostles. Modern and postmodern
attitudes towards cultures, customs, and traditions complicate
matters; for the authors undoubtedly weighted such things according
to their concerns -- their concern with Roman provincial law, for
instance -- not according to our quite different concerns.

This commentary is designed to bring out difficulties,
especially those that are glided over by translations and other
commentaries, and to explore interpretive options. The focus is not
so much on authorship and textual criticism as on grammar and
rhetorical structure and cultural context and possibilities of
meaning. Linked to this commentary is an
excursus on the angels of verse 10.
The ultimate goal of this commentary is to see whether coherent sense
can be made out of the passage, especially a sense that comports with
what we otherwise know of Paul's views and of the Jesus sayings upon
which he relied -- at least, to make some contribution in that
direction.

The commentary starts with the Authorized Version of 1611, not
by design but by happy accident, since the commentary began its
development in another context, the
Glossary of Relationship
Terms (under
"head of the wife"),
where the AV was being used simply because of its familiar terms. I
say "happy" not because of how good the translation is, but because
it represents an encrusted text and a traditional interpretation and
so serves all the better my purpose of bringing out the difficulties
not only of the text but of the interpretations of it.

After the comments follows my fresh close-to-the-text
translation of the passage, which, hopefully, shows the flow of the
passage as much as I have been able to work it out and which, at the
same time, is designed to expose the most significant questions. In
the latter respect it differs from most translations, insofar as they
follow decisions about how the text is to be interpreted.

Then follows that translation laid out according to the
rhetorical structure of the passage as I perceive it, with options
exhibited.

I have written this commentary and the accompanying excursus
not just for scholars and the theologically educated, but also for
any intelligent reader. So generally both technical and obscure terms
are either avoided or explained. Thus, for example, the ancient Greek
translation of the Bible (not inclusive of the New Testament) is
called the Septuagint rather than the LXX; a tractate of the Talmud,
rather than being preceded by a b or a y is instead
preceded by "Talmud Bavli" (that's the Babylonian Talmud) or "Talmud
Yerushalmi" (that's the Palestinian or Jerusalem Talmud, also known
as the Talmud of the Land of Israel); instead of citing just the LCL,
as is common scholarly practice, I instead give a full citation of
the volume in The Loeb Classical Library, whenever I
quote from it; and instead of giving barely enough of a citation to
an ancient source, I often give several of the ways that it might be
cited, at least the first time it is mentioned. The subject is
difficult enough, so I've tried to make the rest easy; although there
are some trade-offs, since explanation and fullness tend to encumber.

Especially for identifying and locating sources cited, the
reader might find it useful to have at hand a few reference tools,
such as The Anchor Bible Dictionary (1992), The
Oxford Classical Dictionary (3rd ed. 1996), The Oxford
Dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd ed., 1997), and
The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion (1965).

One last point before proceeding: This commentary is only as
good as the evidence that it presents. It does not rest upon any
"authority" of its author. I view every commentary just that way, and
commend that approach generally, all the more so when the source is
the Internet.

* Regarding Sosthenes, see Acts 18:17. Was this the same
Sosthenes as the one mentioned in 1 Corinthians 1:1? Was the
Sosthenes of Acts a Christian or one of the Jews that were opposing
the Christians? Was he the same as Crispus in Acts 18:8 (cf. 1
Corinthians 1:14), who was described as a believer, or was he
somebody else? If the latter, did the synagogue of Corinth have more
than one leader (archisynagögos)? Note Eusebius' mention
of Sosthenes:

"Now the names of the apostles of our Saviour are
plain to everyone from the gospels, but no list of the Seventy is
anywhere extant... And they say that Sosthenes too, who wrote with
Paul to the Corinthians, was one of them."
(Ekklësiastikës Historias = Historia
Ecclesiastica = Ecclesiastical History
1.12.1)

If Sosthenes was indeed one of the Seventy, conceivably his
primary role with regard to 1 Corinthians was to provide a sense of
direct anchorage in the life and teachings of Jesus and so to forfend
any attempt to pit the teachings of Paul against those of Jesus (cf.
1:12).

1 Corinthians 11:2-16in the Authorized Version (1611)

2 Now I praise you, brethren,1
that ye remember me in all things, and keep the
ordinances,2-3 as I
delivered them to you.

3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is
Christ; and the head of the woman is the
man;4 and the head of Christ is
God.

4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head
covered,5 dishonoureth his head.

5 But every woman that prayeth or
prophesieth6 with her head
uncovered7 dishonoureth her head: for
that is even all one as if she were
shaven.8-9

6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be
shorn:10 but
if11 it be a
shame12 for a woman to be shorn or
shaven,13 let
her14 be
covered.15

7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head,
forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the
glory of the man.

8 For the man is not of [ek] the woman; but the woman of
[ex] the man.

9 Neither was the man created for [dia] the woman; but
the woman for [dia] the man.

10 For this cause ought the woman to have
power16-17 on
her head18 because
of19 the
angels.20

11 Nevertheless21 neither is the
man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the
Lord.22

12 For as the woman is of [ek] the man, even so
is the man also by [dia] the
woman;23 but all things of [ek]
God.

13 Judge in yourselves: is it
comely24 that a woman pray unto God
uncovered?25

14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have
long hair, it is a shame unto
him?26

15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a
glory27 to her: for her hair is
given her28
for29 a
covering.30

16 But if any man31 seem to be
contentious,32
we33 have no such
custom,34 neither the churches of
God.

Comments on the
Passage

[Before beginning, this note: Square-bracketed
citations need to be verified.]

1 Regarding the word "brethren
[adelphoi]" (verse 2): The Greek word is absent from the best
manuscripts. The presence of the word in other manuscripts may be an
example of a masculinizing textual accretion.

2 Because the passage is sandwiched between,
on the one hand, a mention of traditions (paradoseis in 11:2)
and, on the other, a mention of custom (synëtheian in
11:16), while being speckled throughout by appeals to subjective
feelings and judgment, which can be culturally conditioned, it is
readily dismissed in an age when traditions and customs are often
treated relativistically and casually, even though the early church
and its adversaries sometimes took such extremely seriously.
Notice:

the other two uses of synëtheia in the New
Testament, at John 18:39 and 1 Corinthians 8:7.

In other words, moderns tend to weight the passage much more
lightly than its original readers might have, not just in terms of
application by those who try to live according to the Bible, but even
in terms of scholarly interpretation.

It isn't that something approximating certain modern attitudes
was unknown to the ancients. For example, the contrarian and Cynic
philosopher, Diogenes (ca. 412/403-ca. 324/321 B.C.E.), who, by the
way, died in and was subsequently honored at Corinth, despised that
which is according to convention (nomos) relative to that
which is natural (Diogenes Laertius, Biön =
De vitis = Lives 6.71; regarding Diogenes'
death, see 6.76-79). But probably more characteristic of the age was
the approach later summed up by the Roman lawyer, Julian (fl. 131-168
C.E.), who seems to have been addressing customary law in the Roman
provinces:

"in matters in which we do not have written laws,
that should be observed which was introduced by usage and custom."

--> Justinian, Digest 1.3.32, as translated in:
"The Glossators' Views on Custom," in The Oracles of the
Law, by John P. Dawson (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Law
School, 1968; in series: Thomas M. Cooley Lectures;
1959): pp. 128-134, specifically p. 128.

For all this, Paul was talking not about the customs of a city
or province but about the traditions and practices of a sectarian
religious movement, that is, a Christian sect within the broader
stream of Judaism. Regarding Roman tolerance and validation of Jewish
customs, see especially:

For a useful summary, see: "The Policy of the Early Roman
Emperors towards Judaism," by Vincent M. Scramuzza," being Note XXV,
in: The Beginnings of Christianity. Part I, The Acts of the
Apostles, edited by F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake.
Vol. V, Additional Notes to the Commentary, edited by
Kirsopp Lake and Henry J. Cadbury (London: Macmillan, 1933): pp.
277-297. For Roman policies towards the Jews of the Diaspora, see
especially the second section.

3 Regarding "the ordinances" (verse 2): The
Greek term is tas paradoseis, meaning "the traditions" or "the
teachings passed along." These teachings were quite possibly certain
teachings by and about Jesus. Cf. 1 Corinthians 7:12, 25; 11:23;
15:1-3; 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6. Conceivably this passage is Paul's
response to questions arising out of interaction with certain
teachings by or about Jesus.

4 Throughout this passage, with the exception
of verse 16, the Greek word for "man" is anër (or an
inflected form thereof). Anër is often translated as
either "man" or "husband" and both senses may be at play in this
passage; additionally, in this passage, anër sometimes
refers to the primordial man functioning as archetype.

Furthermore, the Greek word for woman used throughout is
gynë (or an inflected form thereof). Gynë is
often translated as either "woman" or "wife," typically as "wife"
when gynë is paired with anër. Both senses
may be at play in this passage. Additionally, in this passage,
gynë sometimes refers to the primordial woman functioning
as archetype.

With regard to both anër and gynë, Paul
shifted back and forth between senses in this passage. The question
in each instance is which sense was he employing.

By the way, Tertullian's argumentation in De Virginibus
Velandis = On the Veiling of Virgins 7 seems to
assume that early Christians understood 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 as
referring to wives, whereas he wanted the principles enunciated to
cover maidens as well.

5 Regarding the phrase "having his head
covered" (verse 4): Literally rendered, the words read: "down from
head having." The phrase kata kephalës echön is
evidently an idiomatic expression for wearing something that hangs
down from the head. However, it seems odd that the something is not
named. Compare and contrast Plutarch, Moralia 200F =
Römaiön apophthegmata = Sayings of
Romans 13: kata tës kephalës echön to
himation ("having the robe down from the head").

6 Regarding the phrase "every woman that
prayeth or prophesieth" (verse 5): One of the long-standing puzzles
is how does this passage, which appears to endorse a woman
prophesying in a church service, comport with 1 Corinthians 14:34-35,
which tells women to keep quiet in the churches and adds that it is
improper for a woman to speak in a called assembly. The verb there is
lalein, which has as a primary sense, "to chat." So
part of the puzzle is solved by realizing that Paul was saying
that ordinary conversation was out of place in a called assembly.
Prophetic speech was different and may even have been expressed in
distinctive tones (cf. Apuleius, Metamorphoses =
The Golden Ass 8:28 = 8:36 in the William Adlington
numeration = 12 in The Robert Graves numeration).

By the way, prophesying on the part of women was not at all a
strange phenomenon for Corinthians. See, for example, Pausanius,
Hellados Periëgëseös = Description
of Greece 2.24.1.

7 Regarding the phrase, " with her head
uncovered" (verse 5): This is reading a dative of manner. However, it
is possible that a different sort of dative was intended, such as a
dative of disadvantage, in which case the phrase might be translated:
"against the uncovered head."

8 Regarding the phrase, "for that is even all
one as if she were shaven" (verse 5): It might be more precisely
rendered this way: "For she [or he] is one and the same with [or as]
she who has been shorn." Precision brings out two spots -- as
indicated in the square brackets -- that call for an interpretive
decision.

A shaved head and clipped locks signified many different things
in the Greco-Roman and Judean world. Sometimes it had a religious
significance, as it may well have here. See, for example:

This was not only on the part of men, but also on the part of
women (see Numbers 6:2 and, for example, Mishnah, Nazir 3:6; 4:1-5;
9:1).

9 Verses 4 and 5 could be rendered as a series
of rhetorical questions, this way:

Does each man [or husband] praying or
prophesying having a draped head dishonor his head?

Yet does each wife [or woman] praying or
prophesying with the head uncovered [or against the
uncovered head] dishonor her head?

Is she [or he] surely one and the same with
[or as] she who has been shorn?

Whether or not interrogatory punctuation is to be used is
simply a matter of interpretation, since the punctuation of the text
is supplied by editors.

Of course, instead of a series of either questions or
statements, we may have some combination of questions and statements.

Rendering verses 4 and 5 at least partly in interrogative form
is no less justified than rendering 14-15a as a question (or as two
questions), nor does it make less sense. However, rendering both
segments (verses 4-5 and 14-15a) as statements and neither in
interrogative form would probably be a mistake, since the usually
logical Paul would then seem to be blatantly contradicting himself in
the same passage.

In the ancient context, verse 4 makes much better sense as a
question than as a statement, since it seems to call for the
response, "Of course not! Of course there's no dishonor in a man
praying or prophesying with a covered head." To have said otherwise
would have been contrary to the Law and the Prophets (Exodus 28:4,
36-40; 29:6; 39:28; Leviticus 8:9; 10:6; 16:4; 21:10; Ezekiel 44:18;
Zechariah 3:5, note the angelic presence; 6:11), it would have
offended Jewish-Christians who were "zealous for the Law" and whom
Paul sought to mollify at the behest of James (Acts 21:20-26), and it
would also have been an insult to the Roman practice of piety. See,
for starters:

Macrobius, who with regard to the usual Roman practice of
worship noted an exception, namely performing rites at a certain
altar of Saturn "with the head uncovered, in conformity with the
Greek use"; see Saturnalia 1.8.2; cf. 1.10.22; since
Macrobius is not in the Loeb Classical Library, let
me give a fuller translation:

1.8.2: "The god [Saturn] also has an altar in front of the
Senaculum, and the rites are performed there with head uncovered,
in conformity with the Greek use, because it is thought that such
was the original practice, first of the Pelasgians and afterwards
of Hercules."

1.10.22: "Philochorus says that Cecrops was the first to
build, in Attica, an altar to Saturn and Ops, worshipping these
deities as Jupiter and Earth, and to ordain that, when crops and
fruits had been garnered, the head of a household everywhere
should eat thereof in company with the slaves with whom he had
borne the toil of cultivating the land, for it was well pleasing
to the god that honor should be paid to the slaves in
consideration of their labor. And that is why we follow the
practice of a foreign land and offer sacrifice to Saturn with the
head uncovered."

Although Corinthian customs were different from Roman customs,
it is still worth remembering that Corinth was the capital of Achaia,
a Roman province (Apuleius, Metamorphoses 10:18 =
Adlington 10:45 = Graves 16), and that it had been resettled by
Romans only eleven decades or so earlier, circa 44 B.C.E. (Pausanius,
Description of Greece 2.1.2).

By the way, the custom of each Jewish man wearing a head
covering -- nowadays generally either a hat or a kippah -- in
synagogal worship was evidently not known in Paul's day. One of the
first indications that such a custom might have been forming comes
from a couple of centuries later (Talmud Bavli, Kiddushin 31a).

10 The first part of verse 6 could
conceivably be rendered as a question. However, in this case, doing
so may introduce more awkwardness than clarity:

If, in fact, a wife [or woman] is not
covered, shall she even shave herself?

11 Each of the ifs in verse 6 indicates a
first-class condition. (Greek has four classes of conditional
sentences.) This in turn indicates that the protasis (the "if"
clause) is assumed to be the case.

In other words, Paul assumed that at least some women in the
Corinthian church prayed and prophesied with heads uncovered, which
is an especially interesting point since it is clear that at least
one early Christian practice was for women to pray and to prophesy
with heads uncovered. Paul also assumed that at least some women
would have regarded going about with shaved heads as shameful or
ugly.

On the one hand, Paul could have been affirming that for a
woman to have her head shaved was shameful or ugly -- although, note
well, that is not what he actually said in this sentence. On the
other hand, he could have been piquing the women for their sense of
pride over something as insignificant as hair, especially if the
shaving that he had in mind had a religious significance; for what
place has vanity before God? (Cf. "humbling," tapeinountes,
before the gods in Plutarch, Moralia 266D = Roman
Questions 10.) Moralists of the first century C.E. generally
saw past hair. (See, for example, Dio Chrysostom,
Orationes = Discourses 35:3, 11.) It would
seem strange if Paul, who was so focused on inwardness and right
relations (see, for example, Romans 6:17 and 2 Corinthians 3:6), was
not seeing past hair as well.

13 Regarding the phrase, "shorn or shaven
[to keirasthai ë xurasthai]" (verse 6): Keirasthai
is an aorist 1, infinitive middle of keirö.
Xurasthai is a present infinitive passive of
xuraö. So the phrase can be translated: "to have shaved
herself or to be shorn." The article, to, indicates that these
infinitives are substantives; so the phrase could instead be
translated in this unbearably awkward way: "the having shaved herself
or [the] being shorn."

In the Septuagint, keirein (to use the infinitive)
translates several different Hebrew words. It has these basic
meanings:

In the New Testament, the word appears three times, here in 1
Corinthians 11:6 and twice in Acts, where once (in 8:32), as a
participle, it means "shearer (of sheep)" and once (in 18:18) it
means "to shave (the head of a Nazir)."

In the Septuagint, xuran (again to use the infinitive)
translates three Hebrew words and has these basic meanings:

"to shave (the head of a captive about to be embraced as a
high-standing member of the household)" -- galach in
Genesis 41:14; Deuteronomy 21:12; compare the Septuagint's use of
keirein at Jeremiah 52:31;

"to shave (the head and chin of a suspected leper)" --
galach in Leviticus 13:33-34; 14:8-9;

"to shave (the head of a priest)" -- qarach and
galach in Leviticus 21:5 = galach in Ezekiel 44:20;
compare the Epistle of Jeremiah 31;

In the New Testament, the word apears in one other place
besides 1 Corinthians 11:5-6, namely, Acts 21:24, where it means "to
shave (the head of a Nazir)."

Since Paul uses a pair of synonyms, it may be wise to watch for
where such pairs occur either in the Hebrew Bible or the Septuagint.
So we should notice:

qarach and galach in Leviticus 21:5, which is
in reference to levitical priests, who are forbidden to make their
heads bald or to shave the edges of their beards;

qarach and gara' in Jeremiah 48:37 (Hebrew) =
31:37 (Septuagint), which is in reference to certain Moabites, who
in lamentation have made their heads bald and cut their beards
short; and,

qarach and gazaz in Micah 1:16, which is in
reference to certain people of Judah, who were charged to make
themselves bald and to cut off their hair in anticipation of
mourning.

In the Septuagint, the last passage mentioned above, Micah
1:16, is the one instance where the two terms of 1 Corinthians 11:6
appear together: Xurësai kai keirai. However, Paul
doesn't seem to be talking about mourning, rather about shamefulness
or ugliness in a context of worship; and so there seems to be no
allusion to either Micah 1:16 or any of the "mourning" passages.

Paul's use of synonyms may be better explained as a case of the
general and the specific. The broader term, kerasthai (to give
it in its inflected form), was used either because it was widely
encompassing or because it was sometimes used, as later by Luke in
Acts 18:18, to mean something more specific. Paul used the narrower
term, xurasthai, either because the narrower sense was also
meant or because he was using it to anchor the sometimes-used broader
term to a narrower sense. Frankly, a case can be both made and picked
apart for any of the first four senses of xuran given above.
In reference to:

the Nazir, observe that both terms were sometimes used by
early Christians in reference to the Nazir (keirö in
Acts 18:18 and xuraö in Acts 21:24); and see the note
above.

Without further clear indicators, perhaps it is best simply to
leave the sense at "to shave," while yet sensing that more may be
implied.

14 Regarding the phrase, "let her be covered"
(verse 6): It translates a single word, katakaluptesthö,
which can also mean, "let it be covered" or "let him be covered."
"Woman" is the closest possible antecedent. However, "the head" is
the principal topic. And it is conceivable that the head being
referred to is "the man." So an argument can be made for any of the
pronouns.

15 Verse 6 seems to suggest that the woman
prophet has one of two options: either cover or shave. First,
remember that this is in reference to the woman praying or
prophesying. Second, notice that Paul was toggling back and forth
between these two options, ignoring the most obvious one, neither
shave nor cover. Why? The simplest answer is that they were somehow
complementary. So let me suggest two theories, a Corinthian theory
and a Jerusalem theory:

The Corinthian theory is that Paul was admonishing a
would-be prophetess either to take up the emblem of the prophetess
or to take the place of an initiate, remembering that in some
Corinthian mystery religions male initiates were shaved. Paul was
extending the idea to women.

The Jerusalem theory is that if a woman was to speak in a
binding way, she should do so either as a prophetess or as one who
has taken a Nazirite vow and is ready to make her offering.

Neither theory is a good fit, but something along these lines
is needed to explain the toggle.

16 Regarding the word "power
[exousian]" (verse 10): This is the reading of the best
manuscripts, however, there is a variant. The ancient rendering of
this text in some non-Greek manuscripts (Latin, Coptic, and Armenian)
and the discussion of this text by some early Christian writers
suggest that some might have been working with a text that had
kalumma ("veil") instead of exousian.

The most significant instance is found in a mention by Irenaeus
(ca. 130-ca. 200), Bishop of Lyons, of the Valentinians' use of 1
Corinthians 11:10. (The Valentinians were a Gnostic sect.) The
mention is found in his Elenchos kai Anatropë tës
Pseudonomou Gnöseös = Adversus Haereses
= Against Heresies 1.8.2.

However, the kalumma variant is easily explained as a
gloss (a brief note typically in the margin or between the lines)
that crept into the text, a gloss that fit well both with what was
naturally expected and with the masculinizing trends in the history
of both the text and the interpretation of the Pauline epistles. In
other words, kalumma is altogether too easy to explain as a
deviation from an original text, whereas exousian or something
close to it can hardly be explained as anything but original.

17 Once again, regarding the word "power
[exousian]" (verse 10): Conceivably Paul was punning off of
the Aramaic word shiltonayah, which means something like
"headband" or "veil" ([Talmud Yerushalmi, Shabbath 6, 8b, 48]).
Shiltonayah may be derived from shalat, meaning "to
have power over" (or instead it may simply be a dialectical variant
from silbonayah, that is, "braided bands" worn in the hair).
This does not mean that Paul was using the word exousian to
mean "veil" or "head covering," which would have been an unknown
sense of the term. It might mean that he had in mind some sort of
association, or even a contrast, between a head covering and power or
authority. (For a remotely possible alternative idea regarding
cross-language word-play, see the
excursus.)

18 Regarding the phrase, "to have power on
her head" (verse 10): Sometimes, in other contexts, the Greek
phrase exousian exein epi is translated as "to have power
over." There is nothing to prevent it from being translated that way
here.

As for "her head," that is said to be the man (verse 3),
and yet her head in its other sense (with hair) is also mentioned
(verses 5-6). Thus there is an ambiguity (an intentional one?) as to
which head is meant, an ambiguity which can be resolved only by
context. The question is which context, that which immediately
precedes or that which immediately follows?

By the way, the verse is frequently mistranslated along these
lines (here using the New Revised Standard Version, 1989): "For this
reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head,
because of the angels." The interpolation, "a symbol of," is
unjustified, except to indicate one of the possible interpretations
of this cryptic verse.

19 Regarding, "For this cause [dia
touto] ... because of [dia] the angels" (verse 10): The
antecedent of "this" is ambiguous. Is it the immediately preceding
argument having to do with woman being created on account of man, or
is it "on account of the angels"? I suggest the latter, dia
there indicating a completion of the thought. So the verse might be
literally translated this way: "On account of this ought the woman
[or wife] to have power over the head: on account of the angels." See
Herbert Weir Smyth (1956): §1248; cf. similar constructions at
1670 and 2195. The rhetorical pattern supports this interpretation
(see below).

20 Regarding "the angels" (verse 10): What
angels? The options are:

Angels as a matter of language use.

Angels as representatives of human order.

Angels as guardians.

Angels as requiring physical wholeness.

Angels as necessitating the emblem of a prophetess.

Angels as examples.

Angels as tempted beings, i.e. who might be tempted to mate
with women as the sons of God did in Genesis 6.

Angels as agents of disorder.

Angels as Christian envoys to outsiders.

Angels as exploratory visitors from the surrounding
region.

Angels as visitors from other churches.

Angels as bishops.

Angels as forerunners, namely, Adam and Eve.

Angels as symbolic, for instance, of:

the sorting out of the ashamed non-elect from the
unashamed elect; or,

being in Christ.

Angels as undefined but subordinate to a woman, especially
when she speaks with prophetic authority.

More than one of the above.

None of the above.

A bit of the above plus something else, perhaps because of
a wrong slant above.

21 Regarding "Nevertheless [plen]"
(verse 11): The word plen here is often treated as though it
is transitioning from the discussion of woman being for man. However,
it may simply be transitioning from the reference to angels. In other
words, it may indicate something along these lines: "The angels are
one reason, yet in the Lord there's another reason."

"In the past, Adam was created from the ground, and
Eve from Adam; but henceforth it shall be, In our image, after our
likeness (Gen. 1, 26): neither man without woman nor woman
without man, nor both of them without the Shechinah."
(Bereshith Rabbah = Genesis Rabbah 22:2 = 14d)

From: Midrash Rabbah, translated into English with
notes, glossary and indices under the editorship of H. Freedman and
Maurice Simon; with a foreword by I. Epstein (3rd ed. London; New
York: Soncino Press, 1983): v. 1, p. 181.

23 Regarding "so is the man also by
[dia] the woman" (verse 12): A mistake sometimes made by
interpreters is to treat dia in verse 12 as equivalent to
dia in verse 9. However, in verse 9 dia is followed by
an accusative, whereas in verse 12 it is followed by a genitive.
Therefore the translator must choose from different sets of possible
meanings. The Authorized Version reflects the difference
appropriately.

24 Regarding "comely [prepon]" (verse
13): Prepon means "fitting," "suitable," or "proper,"
especially in some way that is conspicuous to the senses.

25 Regarding verse 13 as a question, the
sentence can instead be translated this way, as a statement: "Judge
among yourselves: Proper it is for an uncovered wife to pray to God."
Again, whether or not interrogatory punctuation is to be used is
simply a matter of interpretation, since the ancient manuscripts are
free of such punctuation.

By the way, compare Philippians 4:8.

26 Regarding verses 14 and 15a as a question,
the sentence can instead be translated this way, as a statement: "Not
even nature itself teaches you that, on the one hand, if a man wears
long hair it is a shame to him, but, on the other hand, if a woman
wears long hair it is a glory to her."

Before proceeding, first let me mention that the Greek words
men ... de are properly rendered as "on the one hand ... on
the other hand." See Herbert Weir Smyth (1956): §2904.

Now, neither in the Jewish background of Paul nor in the Greek
background of the Corinthians was there shame for a man in wearing
long hair.

With regard to the Jewish background:

Recall the Nazirite vow (Numbers 6:5; xyron ouk
epeleusetai epi tën kephalën autou in the
Septuagint; by the way, contrast the rule for priests in Leviticus
21:5 and Ezekiel 44:20).

Recall long hair as a vital part of the story of Samson
(Judges 13:5ff; ouk anabësetai sidëros epi tën
kephalën autou in the Septuagint) and as a mark of
distinction for Absalom (2 Samuel 14:25-26).

Notice that Philo in no way treats the long hair of a
Nazirite as a mark of shame. Quite the opposite. See Hoti
Atrepton to Theion = Quod Deus Immutabilis Sit
= The Unchangeableness of God 88 = 19 = 286.

Recall that James the Just, the brother of Jesus, head of
the Jerusalem church, and someone from whom Paul took instruction
(Acts 15:2-30; 21:17-26; Galatians 1:19; 2:9-13) never allowed a
razor to pass over his head (Hegessipus as quoted in Eusebius,
Ekklësiastikës Historias = Historia
Ecclesiastica = Ecclesiastical History 2.23.5;
xyron epi tën kephalën autou ouk anebë).

Recall that while in Corinth, Paul had himself evidently
worn his hair long (such seems the implication of Acts 18:18; cf.
Numbers 6:18).

To turn to examples from the Greeks:

Recall that, after battling each other, the Argives and the
Lacedaemonians (that is, the Spartans) reversed their opposite
customs with regard to long and short hair for men (Herodotus,
Historiai = History 1:82).

Recall that Athenian men had once worn their hair long
enough to fasten with a brooch (Thucydides, Historiai
= History 1.6.3; cf. Duris of Samos as quoted by
Scoliast M on Euripides, Hecuba 934 =
Jacoby no. 76, fragment 24) and that
Plutarch described such hair as stately (Moralia 406D
= Peri tou Më Chran Emmetra Nun tën Pythian
= De Pythiae Oraculis = The Oracles at
Delphi 24).

Recall that the Stoic philosopher, Epictetus (mid-1st-2nd
century C.E.), exhorted a Corinthian lad to let his hair be, other
than to keep it clean (Diatribön =
Discourses 3.1.27-35, 42-45); and compare the
slightly more moderate remarks of another Stoic, Musonius Rufus
(30-100 C.E.), as quoted in Boring (1995): §685.

Recall that Dio Chrysostom (ca. 40/50-after 110 C.E.), a
wandering preacher of Stoic and Cynic philosophy, proudly wore his
hair long (Orationes = Discourses 12:15;
35:2); mentioned that others wore their hair long as well,
including some priests, some other people for religious reasons,
farmers, many foreigners (35:10-12), and philosophers (72:2); and
clearly saw benefit in doing so while stopping short of saying
that long hair was a sign of virtue (35:3, 11-12).

So if verse 14 is a question, it is hard to know what the
premise was referring to.

Xenophon of Ephesus, Ephesiaca = The Ephesian
Story = Habrocomes and Anthia 5.1.7 (Dalmeyda): "...
then she [Thelxinoe] agreed to run away with me [Aegialeus, a
Spartan]. So on the very night of the wedding [of Thelxinoe to
Androcles] I cut her hair short, dressed her in boy's clothes,
and went off with her to Argos"; translation from: The
Ephesian Story, by Xenophon of Ephesus; translated from
the Greek by Paul Turner (London: Golden Cockerell Press,
1957): p. 47.

Lucian, Drapetai = Fugitivi =
The Runaways 27;

for contrast, Horace, Carminum =
Odes 2.11.24.

The Thracian women of Erythrae, across the Aegean Sea from
Corinth, were perpetually honored for having contributed their
hair for the sake of rescuing an image of Heracles from the sea.
Cf. Pausanius, Description of Greece 7.5.7-8.

Incidentally, Duris of Samos may be found
in:Die Fragmente der griechischen
Historiker (F Gr Hist), von Felix Jacoby (Berlin: Weidmannsche
Buchhandlung): 2A (1926): p. 145. He is partially quoted with English
translation in 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle
to the Corinthians, by Hans Conzelmann; translated by James W.
Leitch; bibliography and references by James W. Dunkly; edited by
George W. MacRae (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, c1975; in series:
Hermeneia): p. 186, n48. In reference to Athenians, the
translation reads: "[the men] wore long hair, but the women were
close cropped."

27 Regarding long hair as a woman's "glory"
(verse 15): It should not be automatically assumed that Paul was
using "glory" here in a positive sense, for glory was not always
considered good (cf. Philippians 3:19; Philo, Peri
Gigantön = De Gigantibus = On the
Giants 37-38). The negative sense is improbable here, but the
point is raised simply to show that here is yet another spot where
interpretations could go in opposite directions.

28 Regarding the last "her" or, to be
precise, the second autë (verse 15): Some of the best
manuscripts omit it.

29 Regarding "for [anti]" (verse 15b):
Alternatively the word could be translated "instead of" or "in place
of." Thus the sentence could be translated: "For the hair is given to
her in place of a cloak."

30 Regarding the appeal to nature (verses
14-15): Up to this point, the argumentation has all been confined to
the issue of praying and prophesying, evidently within a church
service. Suddenly the force of the argument, although used solely
with respect to the preceding, seems to apply to all areas of life,
at least in the traditional interpretation as reflected in the
Authorized Version.

Some see in this Paul's importation of attitudes from his home
city of Tarsus, where the custom was that a woman on the street was
to be completely covered, face and all (Dio Chrysostom,
Orationes 33:48 = 16:48), although (a) that is not what
Paul was advocating in the passage; (b) in these two particular
verses he was speaking of hair, not clothing; and, (c) in any case,
in the same passage of Dio Chrysostom in which the custom is
mentioned, its futility is also described (33:49).

Some think that Paul, instead or in addition, was manifesting
stock Jewish attitudes, where long braided hair on the part of a male
was considered effeminate (Philo, De Specialibus Legibus
3:37; Pseudo-Phocylides, Sentences 210-212) and where it
was expected that each wife would have her hair confined by a
kerchief while in public (see, for example, Numbers 5:18 as
interpreted in Philo, De Specialibus Legibus 3:56 and
Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 3:270 = 3.11.6; 3 Maccabees
4:6; Bereshith Rabbah = Genesis Rabbah 17:8 = 12a; Mishnah, Ketuboth
7:6; Talmud Bavli, Nedarim 30b, specifically the gemara on 3:8).
However, Paul was apparently not talking about decoratively presented
male hair. Nor, again, was he either advocating a general use of hair
coverings for women in this passage or speaking about hair coverings
in these two particular verses.

This line of thought leaves one of three possibilities:

Paul was contravening the uncovering of heads in worship by
wives, when otherwise they were covered in public.

There was some special connection of Paul's nature argument
to worship. Or,

The premise is not as assumed in the traditional
interpretation, a possibility which was mentioned earlier when it
was suggested that verses 14-15a form a statement rather than a
question.

By the way, it is well worth pointing out that many discussions
of verses 14-15a present citations according to some bias. References
to long or short hair, or shaved heads as bad or good for men or
women or boys or girls need to be charted objectively and broken down
according to time, place, and situation. Just for starters, besides
what has already been mentioned, see:

Corinth: Results of
Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical
Studies at Athens. Volume XII, The Minor Objects, by
Gladys R. Davidson (Princeton, N.J.: American School of
Classical Studies at Athens, 1952): nos. 235-289; here are
found descriptions and pictures of a variety of female heads
from figurines of the late fourth century to 146 B.C.E.; nos.
389, 391, 396-415, the same but of the 1st and 2nd centuries
C.E. (To see nos. 397-415, click
here.)

Sappho, fragments 81 and 98a-b in the Lobel-Page
numeration as found, for instance, in Greek Lyric,
with an English translation by David A. Campbell (Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press; in series: The Loeb
Classical Library): v. 1 (1982);

The Cambridge Illustrated History of Ancient
Greece, edited by Paul Cartledge (Cambridge; New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press, 1998): p. 131. Here is found a
picture of an Athenian(?) woman with covered head carrying
offerings to an altar at the door of a house. Dated 470
B.C.E.

32 Regarding "contentious
[philoneikos]" (verse 16): Literally the word means "fond of
victory." The image seems to be that of a man and a woman vying
against each other, each striving to come out on top. Such striving
is not commended on the part of either sex.

33 Regarding "we" (verse 16): Who is the "we"
as distinguished from "the churches"?

Paul and Sosthenes (cf. 1:1) in relation to their wives or,
perhaps, just Paul and his wife? But it is generally assumed, on
the basis of 7:7-8, that Paul was not married at this period of
his life.

Sosthenes and his wife? But that would assume that he
authored this passage alone, which seems doubtful on stylistic
grounds.

Paul and Sosthenes in relation to each other? Perhaps,
especially if Paul is transitioning to the next passage about
divisions and factions; however, the rhetorical structure of the
passage (see chart) suggests that Paul is
still talking about headship.

Those who convey the traditions and who implement them
within their spheres of authority when applicable, including Paul
and Sosthenes? This seems the least problematic and fits the
rhetorical structure of the passage.

It is often remarked that the "praying and prophesying"
mentioned in 11:4-5 indicate that this passage is about church order
rather than private life. Whichever is the correct interpretation of
"we" will have some bearing on whether the "praying and prophesying"
mentioned includes praying and prophesying outside of church.

34 Regarding "such custom" (verse 16): What
custom? The options:

a man praying or prophesying with a covered head (verse
4);

a woman praying or prophesying with an uncovered head
(verses 5, 13);

a man wearing long hair (verse 14);

being inclined to love coming out on top (verse 16).

As standard exegetical procedure, I look to see if a rhetorical
pattern can be discerned, remembering that Paul is especially fond of
saying something and then supplementing what he says in reverse
order. In this passage there are both strong micro-patterns and a
loose overall chiastic pattern, which runs from verse 2, "Now I
praise you," to verse 17, "I praise you not," with verse 10 (to my
surprise) in the middle, each part of that sentence that begins with
dia paralleling the other. (See chart,
"The Chiastic Structure of 1
Corinthians 11:1-17") In this overall pattern, "such custom
[toiautën synëtheian]" in verse 16 appears to
supplement, in a contrasting way, "the traditions [tas
paradoseis]" in verse 2; and the phrase "But if anyone intends to
be a savorer of coming out on top" in verse 16 supplements, also in a
contrasting way, the entirety of verse 3: "But I want you to know
that of every man the head is the Messiah, and head of a woman is the
man, and head of the Messiah is God." (My translations.) This pattern
suggests that verse 16 is not, in the first instance, about either
head coverings or long hair, but about a contrast with the order laid
out in verse 3. So "such custom" would be disrupting that order by
trying, figuratively speaking, to be the one on top.

A Fresh Translation of
1 Corinthians 11:2-16

By Norman E. Anderson

2 Now I commend you that you have kept in mind all sorts of my
points and, to the degree that I gifted you, you are maintaining the
gift-teachings.

3 Yet I wish you to have known that the head of every man
[or husband] is the Messiah, and the man [or husband]
is a wife's [or woman's] head, and God is head of the
Messiah.

4 Does each man [or husband] praying or
prophesying having a draped head dishonor his head? [or
Each man praying or prophesying having a draped head dishonors his
head.]

5 Yet does each wife [or woman] praying or
prophesying with the head uncovered [or against the
uncovered head] dishonor her head? [or But each wife
praying or prophesying with the head uncovered dishonors her
head.]

Is she [or he] surely one and the same with
[or as] she who has been shorn? [or For
she is one and the same with she who has been shorn.]

6 If, in fact, a wife [or woman] is not covered
[as is assumed to be the case], let her
[or shall she] even shave herself. [or a
question mark] Yet if to have shaved herself or to be shorn is
ugly [or shameful] for a wife [or woman]
[as is assumed to be the case], let [her or it
or him] be covered.

7 For indeed a man [or husband] [archetypally
speaking] ought not to have the head covered, being from the
first an image and glory of God; but the wife [or woman]
[archetypally speaking] is a glory of a man [or
husband].

8 For a man [or husband] [archetypally speaking]
is not out of a wife [or woman] [archetypally
speaking], but a wife [or woman] [archetypally
speaking] out of a man [or husband] [archetypally
speaking].

9 And also a husband [or man] [archetypally
speaking] was not created on account of the woman [or
wife] [archetypally speaking], but a wife [or woman]
[archetypally speaking] on account of the man [or
husband] [archetypally speaking].

10 On account of this ought the wife [or woman] to have
power over the head: on account of the angels.

11 Nevertheless neither is a wife separate from a husband nor
is a husband separate from a wife [or neither does a woman
exist without a man nor a man without a woman] in [the] Lord.

12 For just as the wife [or woman] [archetypally
speaking] is out of the man [or husband] [archetypally
speaking], so also is the man [or husband] by way of the
woman [or wife]; but all things are out of God.

13 Judge among yourselves: Proper it is [or is it
proper] for an uncovered wife [or woman] to pray to God.
[or a question mark]

14 Not even nature itself teaches [or Doesn't even
nature itself teach] you that, on the one hand, if a man [or
husband] wears long hair it is a disgrace to him,

15 but, on the other hand, if a woman [or wife] wears
long hair it is a glory to her, since the hair is given in place of a
cloak. [or a question mark]

16 Now if anyone seems to be fond of contending for top place,
we have no such custom, nor [have] the churches of God.

The Chiastic Structure of 1 Corinthians 11:1-17
Exhibited

Translation by Norman E. Anderson

Paul says

Paul makes parallel comments in reverse
order

2a Now I commend you that you have kept in mind all
sorts of my points

17 Now with respect to this, an instruction, I do not
commend that you would assemble not for the better but for
the worse.

2b {a} and, to the degree that I gifted you,

{b} you are maintaining the gift-teachings.

16b {a'}we have no such custom,

{b'}nor [have] the churches of God.

3 Yet I wish you to have known that

{a} the head of every man is the Messiah,

{b} and the man is a wife's head,

{c} and God is head of the Messiah.

16a Now if anyone seems to be fond of contending for
top place,

4 {a} Does each man praying or prophesying having a
draped head dishonor his head?

5 {b} Yet does each wife praying or prophesying with
the head uncovered dishonor her head?

{c} Is she surely one and the same with she who has
been shorn?

14 {a'} Not even nature itself teaches you that, on
the one hand, if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace to
him,

15 {b'} but, on the other hand, if a woman wears long
hair it is a glory to her,

{c'} since the hair is given in place of a cloak.

6 {a} If, in fact, a wife is not covered [as is
assumed to be the case],

{b} let her even shave herself.

{b'} Yet if to have shaved herself or to be shorn is
ugly for a wife [as is assumed to be the
case],

{a'} let [her] be covered.

13 Judge among yourselves: Proper it is for an
uncovered wife to pray to God.

7 {a}For indeed a man [archetypally
speaking] ought not to have the head covered, being
from the first an image and glory of God;

{b} but the wife [archetypally speaking]
is a glory of a man.

8 {a'} For a man [archetypally speaking]
is not out of a wife [archetypally speaking],

{b'} but a wife [archetypally speaking]
out of a man [archetypally speaking].

12 {a'} For just as the wife [archetypally
speaking] is out of the man [archetypally
speaking],

{b'} so also is the man by way of the woman;

{c', corresponding to
3{c}} but all things
are out of God.

9 {a} And also a husband [archetypally
speaking] was not created on account of the woman
[archetypally speaking],

{b} but a wife [archetypally speaking]
on account of the man [archetypally
speaking].

11 {a'} Nevertheless neither is a wife separate from a
husband

{b'} nor is a husband separate from a wife in [the]
Lord.

10 On account of this ought the wife to have power
over the head:

on account of the angels.

Alternatively

9 {Aa} And also a husband [archetypally
speaking] was not created on account of the woman
[archetypally speaking],

{Ab} but a wife [archetypally speaking]
on account of the man [archetypally
speaking].

10 {Ba} On account of this ought the wife to have
power over the head:

{Bb} on account of the angels.

11 {Aa'} Nevertheless neither is a wife separate from
a husband

{Ab'} nor is a husband separate from a wife in [the]
Lord.

Notes on the Chiasm

I notice that E. W. Bullinger presented a different chiastic
scheme for 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. See The Companion
Bible (London: Lamp Press, [ca. 1910]): p. 1714. The pattern
he perceived is as follows:

A Chiasm in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 according to E. W.
Bullinger

Q. The public use of spiritual gifts

x (verse 2)

Praise of the obedient

y (verse 3)

A revealed principle

Y (verses 4-6)

Result

Y (verses 7-12)

Reasons

y (verses 13-15)

Nature's teachings

x (verse 16)

Rejection of the contentious

The problem is that this pattern follows what was perceived to
be the logical flow rather than a close association of words and
ideas, when it is the logical flow itself that is in question and in
need of elucidation on the basis of the association of words and
ideas. However, my analysis coincides fairly closely, at least for
verses 7-9, with the more detailed pattern that Bullinger exhibited,
in a different chart, for verses 7-12.

My analysis coincides more closely with that of Nils Wilhelm
Lund, except that mine went further. The essential point of
concurrence is the centrality of verse 10. Lund, by the way, suggests
that the structure of 1 Corinthians 11:8-12 was modeled on that of
Psalm 89:30-34. See Chiasmus in the New Testament: A Study in
Formgeschichte, by Nils Wilhelm Lund
(Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1942): p.
148-150.

A Chiasm in 1 Corinthians 11:8-12 according to Nils
Wilhelm Lund

For the man is not

A

Of the woman,

But the woman

Of the man.

For neither was the man created

B

For the woman,

But the woman

For the man.

C

For this cause the woman ought to have authority upon
her head because of the angels.

Nevertheless, Neither is the woman

B'

Without the man,

Nor the man

Without the woman, in the Lord.

For as the woman is

A'

Of the man,

So is also man

By the woman; but all things are of God

Yet another analysis of the rhetorical structure of 1
Corinthians 11:2-16 is to be found in The Shape of Biblical
Language: Chiasmus in the Scriptures and Beyond, [by] John
Breck; with an afterword by Charles Lock (Crestwood, N.Y.: St.
Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1994): pp. 248-249. In the following box,
the translation and the square brackets are his.

The Chiasms of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16
according to John Breck

11:2-7,

[V. 2 is an introduction, a further example of
anacrusis]

I commend you because you remember me in everything
and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to
you.

A (3): But I want you to understand that the head of
every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and
the head of Christ is God.

B (4): Any man who prays or prophesies with his head
covered dishonors his head,

C (5a): but any woman who prays or prophesies with her
head unveiled dishonours her head --

D (5b): it is the same as if her head were shaven.

E (6a): For if a woman will not veil herself,

then she should cut off her hair;

D' (6b): but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be
shorn or shaven,

C' (6c): let her wear a veil.

B' (7a): For a man ought not to cover his head,

A' (7b): since he is the image and glory of God;

but woman is the glory of man.

11:8-12,

A (8): For man was not made from woman, but woman from
man.

B (9): Neither was man created for woman,

but woman for man.

C (10): That is why a woman ought to have a veil on
her head, because of the angels.

B' (11): Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not
independent of man nor man of woman;

A' (12): for as woman was made from man, so man is now
born of woman. And all things are from God.

11:13-16,

A (13): Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman
to pray to God with her head uncovered?

B (14): Does not nature itself teach you that for a
man to wear long hair is degrading to him,

C (15a): But if a woman has long hair, it is her pride
(lit: her glory)?

B' (15b): For her hair is given to her for a
covering.

A' (16): If any one is disposed to be contentious, we
recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God.

Breck's analysis is intriguing; however, he sometimes ignores
strong micro-parallelisms, and he misses the overarching structure
that contributes to this passage's unity. Nevertheless, my own
analysis might bear modification in the light of his. For instance,
the parallelism of verses 2 and 17 might better be shown in my chart
as two introductions each belonging to its own literary unit with its
own literary structure.

Still, Breck places verse 10 at the center of the central
chiasm (or some might prefer the term "concentric" here); and on that
point his judgment reinforces both Lund's and mine.

Concluding Remarks

Not only is it possible but it seems probable that the entire
passage means exactly the opposite of the traditional understanding.
What matters to Paul is not the outward appearance, but one's
authority in the Lord, including a woman's. While yet recognizing
differences between men and women associated with the present age as
conceived by Paul, in the Lord and particularly in a prophetic
capacity they are the same.

This is not to say that all has been resolved. Far from it.
Verse 6 has not been adequately explained. And none of the theories
discussed in the excursus about the angels of 11:10 is without flaw.

However, this interpretation fits with Paul's attitudes
elsewhere both towards the inner life relative to incidental
externals and towards women: neither male nor female in Christ
(Galatians 3:28), yet believers are still to be in conformity with
the Law on earthly marriage and sexuality (for example, 1 Corinthians
5-7 and Ephesians 5:21-33). Interpreted and translated this way, the
original Paul might at last be recovered after having been distorted
within a few generations after the Apostles.